Religion

[Jabbermocky]

emphasis on "to agree with you" TO -- that's my point.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Wow Kim - you considered my question an attempt to beat up on him?
He answered my question quite well, and if you took that as me trying to be a jerk or something, you are way off. RELAX!

 

[trainedobserver]

... of what they consider others' "belief systems that originate from the worship of ancient nomadic tribal gods"

Are you seriously trying to deny that Yahweh/Jehovah was not the god of an ancient nomadic tribe? It's small points like this where serious deviation from the truth occurs. Even as a believer I recognized this as the truth.

 

[trainedobserver]

emphasis on "to agree with you" TO -- that's my point.

Did you read the sentence that had "education" in it? Have someone explain to you what, "The answer is an education (to dispel ignorance) that encourages doubt (to do away with unthinking devotion), questioning (to discover how the world really works), and free-thought ..." actually means.

When you teach people how to think for themselves they will flee from superstitious beliefs. Education is quite different than the religious equivalent, indoctrination.

 

[trainedobserver]

Wow Kim - you considered my question an attempt to beat up on him?
He answered my question quite well, and if you took that as me trying to be a jerk or something, you are way off. RELAX!

This whole thread has caused me to appreciate the truths found in The Real God even more. It's pretty startling really.

 

[Jabbermocky]

Did you read the sentence that had "education" in it? Have someone explain to you what, "The answer is an education (to dispel ignorance) that encourages doubt (to do away with unthinking devotion), questioning (to discover how the world really works), and free-thought ..." actually means.

I agree with you somewhat about what "education" means, but dispelling ignorance does not mean agreeing with what trained observer or any other person thinks should be the result. Did you read the context under which my points were being made? So if one had been educated enough (supposedly to "your" standards) to make a decision, yet would bring a person back to a belief in a supreme being and the teachings of Jesus, would that be OK with you and would it satisfy your test -- or would they have just been a waste of time in your opinion?

 

[Kim323]

This "whole thread" is a beat up thread. Look around and see what is posted as "data" is meant to hurt, and this is a number of threads begun by two who act as I described. Yes, I think jabbermocky got beat up. He spotted what's been going on in these threads that are competitions between two to incite. He spotted it darn quick. I just thought jabbermocky deserved more from you, Angelo, and you,trained. You two do play coy with what I see as coy rhetorical questions and comments, and the way you insert them into these inflammatory threads begun by two give more than tacit approval. Heck ,you know, I'm not even angry. I've learned a lot, and have learned how to play this game and have avoided these threads like the plague. I JUST FELT SORRY FOR JABBERMOCKY. But he held his own just fine, and pointed out what should be obvious, but he was so accurate about the tone. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

...dispelling ignorance does not mean agreeing with what trained observer or any other person thinks should be the result.

You're reading things into what I said that are not there. You are making things up so you have some imagery leg to stand on.

Did you read the context under which my points were being made? So if one had been educated enough (supposedly to "your" standards) to make a decision, yet would bring a person back to a belief in a supreme being and the teachings of Jesus, would that be OK with you and would it satisfy your test -- or would they have just been a waste of time in your opinion?

Any real education teaches people to properly evaluate evidence and arrive at sound decisions. If someone can seriously get behind the actions and teachings of Yahweh after having been shown that it isn't necessary to assure that they aren't eternally tortured for it, so be it. I do reserve the right to point out the immorality and inhuman nature of the thing though when the opposite is presented to me.

So, I take you have contrived some brilliant rationalization in your mind to justify the worship of the monstrous character of Yahweh as he is portrayed in the O.T. You have my sympathy, but why don't you share that with us? How do you justify your belief or anyone else's for that matter, that Yahweh is a real being worthy of your reverence and worship as a god or God?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Sorry, but I asked an honest question - would you respect someone less if you found out he or she was an atheist. He answered in the context of a mason, and his response to that specific question was well said.

 

[trainedobserver]

You two do play coy with what I see as coy rhetorical questions and comments, and the way you insert them into these inflammatory threads begun by two give more than tacit approval.

You fellows can jump up and down and cry persecution all you want. The fact of the matter is that the character of the god Yahweh in the O.T. is not so pretty. The fact that you take this so personally and are in seeming denial of it in light of the reality of the printed page is interesting.

 

[Jabbermocky]

Wait a minute TO! I just noticed that my comment,"... I think humanity is hard-wired for religious thought -- that's why it is so easy for zealots to conjure up thousands to do their dirty-work. If I am right, there are plenty of other religions out there that are growing and looking for converts (I think I may have poorly hidden my subject there). You may find yourself jumping from the frying pan into the fire." got a 'miss' from you, "nonsensical" you said. It has just occurred to me that I have seen something with a very similar message before...yeah, that's right. Right under your comments:

"Not only is there an amazing willingness in the human mind to invest credence and faith in unproven facts, but there is more evil, more readiness than ever on the part of various sophisticated groups, to use this human weakness as a tool in controlling others."
Jacques Vallee - Revelations

Go figure!

 

[trainedobserver]

Wait a minute TO! I just noticed that my comment,"... I think humanity is hard-wired for religious thought -- that's why it is so easy for zealots to conjure up thousands to do their dirty-work. If I am right, there are plenty of other religions out there that are growing and looking for converts (I think I may have poorly hidden my subject there). You may find yourself jumping from the frying pan into the fire." got a 'miss' from you, "nonsensical" you said. It has just occurred to me that I have seen something with a very similar message before...yeah, that's right. Right under your comments:

"Not only is there an amazing willingness in the human mind to invest credence and faith in unproven facts, but there is more evil, more readiness than ever on the part of various sophisticated groups, to use this human weakness as a tool in controlling others."
Jacques Vallee - Revelations

Go figure!

Yes, but you seem to be arguing that "the devil that you know" is better than no devil at all.

Justify a belief that worshiping the god Yahweh is moral or just if you can. I can not.

 

[Kim323]

Trained, "we fellows" have tried to have a real back and forth. How many times does it have to be said that the old testament has some unsavory to say the least parts to it? But that's all you, and two others who start those other threads to inflame and demean, can constantly throw around. As a tool of discussion, even, that should have been left behind, but because it's easy, requires no deeper digging of you to discuss the things of depth, it's a gotcha thing that lost its "sting"long ago,and "you fellows" have become a mockery that jabberwocky picked up on real quick. Again, I entered this thread because I felt jabberwocky was RIGHT about the sheer personal hatred expressed on recent threads begun by two. I won't enter those, but vesvehighfolk began this one with genuine feeling and then the cruel stuff started. So don't give me the "cry persecution" stuff like we're crybabies. I'm made of sterner stuff than that. I'll see you on other threads. I'll maintain that with your post on the abduction thread about the reality of so-called nuts and bolts craft, with your more than implied insinuation that they're piloted/sent by intelligent Extraterrestrials to be the very religion you have adopted that you condemn in others. Yet you proclaim your adherence to rationality and fact. Kim

 

[trainedobserver]

I see no difference between the insult to the intelligence that Robbert B.'s claims present in light of his obvious immoral behavior of hoaxing photographs and playing on the emotions of people through claiming to contact their dead loved ones, and someone trying to present Yahweh or anything remotely related to the character as divine, supremely and absolutely moral, or worthy of my worship and devotion in light of their own documentation of the characters activities.

 

[trainedobserver]

How many times does it have to be said that the old testament has some unsavory to say the least parts to it? But that's all you, and two others who start those other threads to inflame and demean, can constantly throw around.

You wish to use your pen-knife to cut out the unsavory parts then? (not lost on you I'm sure)

So don't give me the "cry persecution" stuff like we're crybabies. I'm made of sterner stuff than that.

I haven't seen it.

I'll see you on other threads. I'll maintain that with your post on the abduction thread about the reality of so-called nuts and bolts craft, with your more than implied insinuation that they're piloted/sent by intelligent Extraterrestrials to be the very religion you have adopted that you condemn in others. Yet you proclaim your adherence to rationality and fact. Kim

This is what people who can't make a reasonable justification of their beliefs do. They distract, distort, and attempt to put the onus on another. I am not responsible for your reading comprehension problem (or is it the immoral compulsion to distort to fit) Kim. I have not adopted a religion that includes ETs intelligent or not. I have made no claims whatsoever about the true nature of UFOs or their occupants if any. Speculation is not a statement of belief. I have no religion and unlike you apparently, I have a working understanding of the word.

I put to you this whole business has to do with personal honesty and the willingness to admit ugly truths to oneself. You can justify the worship of Yahweh? I can not.

 

[stonehart]

The problem here is that "perceptions" are like A-holes, everybody has one. When you start from the perception "it's all bunk and the entire Bible is fiction and mind control," then that's what you will most likely come up with. When you start from "It's a conspiracy and people are being told a lie," then that's more than likely what you will come up with. If you start with actual skepticism, such as 'Maybe, we don't have the correct tools to understand this stuff and maybe we should open up the doors of perception by studying the Bible and the effects of those believers experiencing religion.' Or; maybe even experimenting with practicing the lifestyle of everyday Christians, other religions, that we so quickly deprecate, and compare our interpretation and information with actual events. I think we get stuck sometimes with trying to use selected parts of religious documents. We throw away good messages from people like Graham and Sharpton and Tutu and call them fools and fanatics because some smirking "atheist" says it's not possible. I think that as long as we have people with a "vested" interest in debunking instead of real tolerance and a vested interest in nuts and bolts religion instead of just following the message where it leads, we will always have this argument. Maybe someday we will have indisputable contact with "God" or a cosmic intelligence. Until then I don't think anybody will ever be totally convinced of anything. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Burden of proof .. prove the bible and Christianity or any other religion is true without resorting to fairy tales and magic.

"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance."

 

[Kim323]

Jabbermocky said, "The terms used and what appears to be utter hatred by some, towards Christians (in particular), their chosen book of faith (the Bible in particular) and the cherry-picking the bad stuff and offering it as representative of the whole........."

I haven't seen Jabbermocky in this discussion, or if he has been, I somehow didn't notice, but he is so articulate and heartfelt on this thread that I don't know how I could have missed him. His appraisal is, as one of the offending (in my opinion) posters likes to put it so eloquently, "spot on." As pedantic as I can be, only occasionally liking to think I brush up against eloquence, Jabbermocky has put it beautifully, and he seems to have caught on to it pretty darn quickly, and he did it better than I could, and that's what brought me into this thread. I've been avoiding these things like the plague.

As I said in an earlier post, that is pure beauty of thought and articulateness. It accurately illustrates how people are treated on this forum when religion is brought up, and though I have noticed that there's been just the SLIGHTEST SHIFT away from Christianity recently and ostensibly toward religion in general, Jabbermocky has it right that the specific target of all this poison and attitude has been Christianity and the Bible ALL ALONG FROM THE BEGINNING, and now threads are begun by two with the specific intent to post this stuff only. These threads are composed primarily of posts from these two, they do it with impunity, and a team of psychiatrists, doctors, your neighbors down the street, educators, etc., etc., and yes, theologians, would be needed to get to the bottom of this "utter hatred." It is openly condoned by one moderator. I guess it's tacitly so by others.

There has also from the beginning, in my view, along with Christianity, a decided attack on Judaism and Jews, and I have brought this up in other posts. After all, the Bible contains books of their scriptures, the Tanakh. Terms used have been contemptuous of Jews, and yes, I know some have said, well, it's religion, and that's open season by its very nature. I disagree strongly.

Trained can talk sanctimoniously of "personal honesty," but he along with two others especially, is complicit in these attacks. And what will not be acknowledged is that this is not "data," that sacred word used by one of the moderators. Its excessive use, its mining from the internet for ease of posting, its accompanying remarks described so superbly by Jabbermocky, and its clear purpose to demean, ridicule, and hold in contempt, cannot be denied, though protestations to the sky are coyly invoked, and not so coyly put. It's downright utter hatred, and I have spoken to it before. It is NOT excused by reference to, well, if you're religious, you're subscribing to everything it implies, and it's data, so quit your crying.

I have said in earlier posts that this stuff alleges child abuse, wife beating, murder, and my God (and I'm going to invoke him!), that's just the start. And the KEY THING continues, as I have said before: these attacks are put in the present tense in that, to me, the clear objects of the hatred are Christians and Jews in CURRENT TIMES ALSO. And that has been the chief and almost only method of argument in this whole "discourse" since the now famous (I guess) Jesus threads.

I have shown friends, Christian, Jewish, agnostic, and couldn't find any atheists, sorry. Their comments speak to the sheer volume of attack in quantity, its profaneness, its rudeness (meant not only in terms of lack of politeness and decorum, but just plain dirty), and its cruelty. I've written before that it refers to your own neighbors, family, and colleagues. Few here care. Those who do, well, I don't know, I'm not saying they SHOULD say anything, it's better they don't. But I am. What Jabbermocky brought up so spontaneously in this thread sums it up very, very accurately. Kim

 

[stonehart]

The Origin of God - Douglas Adams

 

[mike]

I am always in awe of the "angry" athiest mechanism.
Its often trotted out in these discussions, because angry carrys with it the connotation of irrational. Thats the "picture" the defenders of the holy sham try and paint.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"

Most of the sermon's text consists of ten "considerations":

1. God may cast wicked men into hellat any given moment.
2. The Wicked deserve to be cast into hell. Divine justice does not prevent God from destroying the Wicked at any moment.
3. The Wicked, at thismoment, suffer under God's condemnation to Hell.
4. The Wicked, on earth - at this very moment - suffer the torments of Hell. The Wicked must not think, simply because they are not physically in Hell, that God (in Whose hand the Wicked now reside) is not - at this very moment - as angry with them as He is with those miserable creatures He is nowtormenting in hell, and who - at this very moment - do feel and bear the fierceness of His wrath.
5. At any moment God shall permit him, Satanstands ready to fall upon the Wicked and seize them as his own.
6. If it were not for God's restraints, there are, in the souls of wicked men, hellish principles reigning which, presently, would kindle and flame out into hellfire.
7. Simply because there are not visible means of death before them at any given moment, the Wicked should not feel secure.
8. Simply because it is natural to care for oneself or to think that others may care for them, men should not think themselves safe from God's wrath.
9. All that wicked men may do to save themselves from Hell's pains shall afford them nothing if they continue to reject Christ.
10. God has never promised to save us from Hell, except for those contained in Christ through the covenant of Grace.

Its hilarious that athiest are spun as "angry",and thus suspect. but gods anger is just and righteous.

As previously posted we dont dont condemn a dangerous dog to prolonged torture for attacking a member of the public, we humanely put it down.
Torturing it for a prolonged period serves no useful purpose.......
And yet.....God may cast wicked men into hell at any given moment

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

 

[stonehart]

Angry? lol no ... dumfounded by the lack of rational reasoning is more like it.